Middle East

It Is nearly seven years after the US-led invasion of Iraq. US
imperialism had hoped for a quick war, the Iraqi oil industry under the
control of US companies and a compliant, stable regime. However, the
situation today is very different to what George Bush and Tony Blair
envisaged.

The Iraqi population has been abandoned, facing high levels of
unemployment and a lack of basic resources, while the Iraqi government
and oil companies struggle for control of the country’s enormous oil
wealth. This has increased sectarian and national tensions within Iraq
and these tensions are spilling over into the forthcoming elections on 7
March. Recent bomb attacks underline the dangerous situation that
ordinary Iraqis still face.

The number of Iraqis violently killed rises

Bremer

Control of the oil wealth in the predominantly Kurdish area of northern
Iraq is a major issue underpinning a lot of tensions. That oil wealth is
potentially vast. Estimates put the reserves in Iraq at 115 billion
barrels, probably more than Iran’s and second only to Saudi Arabia. Yet
production is still running at 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) lower than
the pre-war daily average of 2.5 million.

In post-Saddam Iraq, the US government was hoping to dramatically
increase output under the control of predominantly US oil companies. To
try to achieve this aim Paul Bremer, Bush’s chief representative in Iraq
in the year following the invasion, under the guise of removing all
members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party from their positions, sacked oil
technicians, engineers and administrators leaving behind only a skeleton
crew of Iraqi oil workers to manage the existing production.

Bremer was hoping that private oil companies, eager to exploit the oil
wealth, would come in with their workforces to take over. Some companies
did, but attacks on oil pipelines and facilities increased from 200 in
the first two years of occupation to 600 in 2007. In part this was in
response to Bremer ripping up agreements over access to oil by the local
population.

The major oil companies weighing up the risks decided the danger was too
great at that stage. Also, significant action was taken by Iraqi oil
workers striking against the privatisation of oil facilities in Basra.

Arguments developed between the Iraqi government and US about how the
oil fields could be developed. None of these arguments centred on
improving conditions for ordinary Iraqis, but who gets the biggest share
of the oil wealth, the Iraqi regime or the oil companies.

In an attempt to develop the oilfields, on 2 January 2009 the Iraqi
government offered a new deal to oil companies wanting to invest in
Iraq, offering them $2 for every barrel they extracted after their
original investment costs had been met.

The major oil companies initially rejected these terms out of hand,
demanding complete control over production and payments of $25 per
barrel! However, the Chinese National Petroleum company was keen to gain
a foothold in Iraq and get its hands on some of the vast reserves. It
induced BP, its partner in Iraq, to develop the Ramaila oilfield near
Basra on the Iraqi government terms.

As a result of this other companies, not wanting to see the Chinese
government gain all the most lucrative contracts, accepted contracts on
the initial terms. These companies are mainly state-owned but include
Shell and Exxon.

However, some members of the Iraqi parliament are now challenging these
contracts, no doubt wanting to get their own hands on this oil wealth
but also feeling the pressure from ordinary Iraqis angry at seeing jobs
and the oil wealth leaving Iraq.

As Brigadier Marriner, the British defence attaché at the British
embassy in Baghdad mused: "As a senior American politician said, ’If
this was not about oil in 2003, it certainly is now’."

Elections

This is the background to the current elections. The government of prime
minister Nuri al-Maliki is widely distrusted in Iraq. Iraq is judged as
the fifth ’most corrupt’ country in the world by Transparency
International. US president Barack Obama is desperate for these
elections to be held and to show some thin veneer of democracy.

The Iraq war and occupation has already cost the US government over $707
billion. At a time of the biggest economic crisis since the 1930s and
with a US government debt of 12% of GDP, Obama urgently wants to limit
the cost of this war with the aim of an ultimate withdrawal. But this
cannot be at any cost. They want some form of stable regime that they
can work with and one that will not stand in the way of the increasing
exploitation of the oil wealth by private oil companies.

What these elections are not about is offering any dramatic improvement
in the lives of ordinary Iraqis. All of the parties contesting the
elections support the maintenance of capitalism and the ensuing cuts and
privatisations that flow from this, while the wealthy elite enrich
themselves at the workers’ expense.

Unfortunately for Obama a spanner has been thrown into the works with
the banning of about 500 of the 6,000 candidates and 15 of the parties
by Iraq’s accountability and justice commission.

Many of these are Sunni candidates and some have links to the banned
Baath party. There is a fear that this could lead to an upsurge in
sectarian violence and a boycott of the elections by sections of the
Sunni-Arab population.

These elections will only serve to underline the majority of Iraqis’
feelings towards the political process. As a retired agriculture
professor in Baghdad recently said: "Most people don’t trust the
politicians now. They know they’re backed by some outside power, and the
biggest power is the Americans, so whoever the Americans back will win."

Iraqis’ lives

The conditions that most Iraqis face are a clear reminder that the war
and occupation were nothing to do with improving the lives of ordinary
Iraqis. Unemployment stands at around 50% and about four million Iraqis
are displaced. Alongside the fear that many Iraqis feel with the upturn
in the bombing attacks, the conditions that many Iraqis face are brutal:
1,730 square kilometres of land are contaminated by landmines and
unexploded ordnance, making 11% of all water supplies inaccessible.

Access to clean water is critical yet 15% of households are not
connected to the public water network and in some areas 73% of the
population have no access to safe water.

The number of women dying in childbirth is 300 women per 100,000 births
in Iraq compared to 140 women per 100,000 births in neighbouring Iran.
Yet prior to the years of western sanctions and then the invasion and
occupation, Iraq had one of the more advanced health systems in the
region.

Nearly a quarter of the population lives below the official poverty line
of $2.20 a day and in just under 10% of districts in the country acute
malnutrition in children - newly borns to five years old - runs at over
10%. Overcrowding in housing is also a massive problem with 13% of
housing in urban areas occupied by ten occupants or more. There is a
shortfall of two million houses.

Workers’ movement

There is evidence that the suppressed workers’ movement is struggling to
improve the conditions for Iraqi workers, however small these steps
forward may be.

The beginning of 2010 saw a strike of hotel workers at the Rasheed hotel
in the green zone in Baghdad over a risk bonus. This followed on from a
strike of leather workers which was successful in winning a 25%-30%
safety bonus for 1,500 workers in the state-run enterprise of leather
industries. Previous to that there had been an 18-day strike of 4,000
textile workers.

What is clearly lacking throughout Iraq is a non-sectarian mass workers’
party that will fight for workers’ rights and for the defence of public
services, though these struggles can be part of the process of
developing such a party.

This party needs to develop a programme that can begin to take the
struggles of the Iraqi people forward. Its programme should include the
democratic ownership by the people of Iraq of the major companies that
dominate the economy and it should use the wealth of these companies,
including the vast natural resources, for the benefit of the people of
Iraq as a whole.

The unresolved issue of Kurdish national aspirations

A big issue in Iraq is the national aspirations of the Kurdish
population. Consciousness varies in different parts of the Kurdish
area of northern Iraq, with support ranging from autonomy to outright
independence.

The CWI supports the right of the Kurdish population to self
determination up to and including independence if that is what the
majority of the population democratically decide.

It is no surprise that control of the oil reserves plays a part in
this situation as well. The Kurdish area of Iraq sits on 5% of the
world’s known oil reserves - the 6th largest in the world.

There are growing ethnic tensions between the Arab, Turkoman and
Kurdish populations. On the Arab/ Kurdish border known as the ’trigger
line’ there are 130 violent attacks a month. Many in Iraq,
particularly in the government, do not want to see the separation of
Iraqi Kurdistan - concerned at the loss of the oil wealth in the
country.

However there is also pressure from neighbouring states, in particular
Turkey, which is completely opposed to an independent Kurdish state of
Iraq for fear of the effect this would have on the Kurdish population
in Turkey.

In the Kurdish area in Iraq there is a growing mood amongst the
population against the established Kurdish capitalist parties, the PUK
and KDP, who many see as corrupt and not committed enough to national
independence. Both the PUK and KDP have a history of perpetrating
outrages against one another, including a catastrophic Kurdish civil
war in 1993-1998.

A new political force Gorran ("movement for change") made a
significant breakthrough in the elections to the regional parliament
in July last year, winning 25 seats on an anti-corruption platform.

Gorran, however, is not a workers’ organisation. It is headed by
former PUK leader and media owner Nawshirwan Mistefa, who wants to
’modernise’ the Kurdish region based on a free market economy.

The current situation shows the urgent need for an independent Kurdish
party that is able to connect the national liberation aspiration to
the social liberation of workers and poor people.